Text
From Fina Wiki
"Text" is a predefined property that represents text of arbitrary length and is provided by Semantic MediaWiki. This property is pre-deployed (also known as special property) and comes with additional administrative privileges but can be used just like any other user-defined property.
J
The book appears in ''A Catalogue of the Library of the late John Byrom'' (n.p., 1848), p. 85 +
Hesketh died on 18 April 1735. Presumably the transaction was not completed. +
The coin of Cadi is now in the [https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18247452 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin]. +
A draft of this letter can be found at BL, Add MS 22911, f.127. +
Evelyn's draft copy is at BL, Add MS 78299, f.96 +
Two copies or drafts of this letter survive, one beginning 'Vox Νεωκόρων', the other 'Νεωκόροι'. +
Burnett 2020b, p. 1182 suggests L. Carie might be George Carew (1555-1629) +
Burnett 2020b, p. 156, n. 48: 'The letter is undated, but Ellis 1843, p. 108, attributed it to 1609–10, during the preparation of Speed’s ''History'' of 1611. The mention of Switzer shows that this is correct and that the passage cannot refer to the plates made by Speed for Camden in 1600, since they were made by William Rogers.' +
Burnett 2020b, p. 1197: 'On an earlier page (f.3r) the books by Goltzius and Caesar appear, valued at £2:10s:0d and, strangely, £0:0s:0d, suggesting a price of £27:10s:0d for the coins. Later in the same volume (f.29r), we seem to have another version of the same transaction.' +
'The reference [to a present] is to a medal which was promised to [Swift] by Queen Caroline before he sent her the poplin.' (Williams 1963, vol. 3 p. 315 n. 1) +
'According to the editor of Swift’s letters, ‘Mr Clayton’ was perhaps a relation of Robert Clayton (1695–1758), later Bishop of Clogher, who ‘on several occasions conveyed missives between Swift and Oxford’: Williams 1963, Vol. III, p. 244, note 4.' (Burnett 2020b, p. 1627 n. 9) +
A letter without date and place but quoting literature published in 1788. To be published in Williams - Woytek +
Woytek 2022a, p. 389, note 114: "The “nine years’ polish” is an evident allusion to Catullus c. 95, 1–2 (Zmyrna mei Cinnae nonam post denique messem / quam coepta est nonamque edita post hiemem) and/or Horace, Ars P. 388–389 (nonumque prematur in annum / membranis intus positis). The Alexandrian poets and their Neoteric followers in Rome pledged themselves to creating elaborate, highly learned, sometimes oversophisticated poems regardless of the necessarily lengthy production process. I am grateful to my father Erich Woytek for advising me on this point." +
Williams 2022, p. 257-258: "A report written by Eckhel after Cocchi’s death and attached to a letter addressed to Cocchi’s close collaborator, Pietro Bastianelli (c. 1728–after 1789), provides detailed information on the arrangement
carried out.119 The main points can be summarised as follows. The ancient coins were divided into two groups: those minted outside of Rome and those minted in Rome. The material in the first group (that is the Greek and Roman provincial specimens) was arranged geographically starting from Hispania and proceeding clockwise around the Mediterranean Sea down to Africa, regardless of size and metal. The coins minted by the Hellenistic kings were included in the relevant minting regions, and not listed separately, as for example in the geographical arrangement proposed earlier by Pellerin. Groups of coins that were traditionally kept separate, such as specimens featuring heroes and llustrious men, coins minted by the Greek cities under Roman rule, and specimens struck at Alexandria, Egypt, during the Roman Empire were grouped together with the others under the respective mints. If Eckhel and Cocchi both agreed on the geographical order of the Greek coins, they argued about the arrangement of the Roman Imperial specimens.120 In the end, the re-edition of Occo’s work by Francesco Mezzabarba Birago was chosen as the main model.121 Eckhel recognised that the Roman Imperial coins were better organised chronologically than alphabetically according to the legends on the reverse, but believed that Mezzabarba Birago’s arrangement was partly wrong or confusing, like for example in the case of coins minted by an emperor for another family member, or in the case of coins without precise chronological indications, such as those struck during Hadrian’s third consulship. Eckhel criticised the arrangement of many coin cabinets that aimed at celebrating the collector (as was the case for example in Bologna and Rome, as we have seen); in his opinion collections presented in this way were not suitable for the study of antiquity. He considered the new arrangement of the Florentine cabinet to be more instructive than the traditional one, but at the same time not perfect. According to Eckhel, in order to manage the collection and easily find the coins in the cabinets in this new system, the curator needed three accurate additional catalogues: one for the Greek section and two for the Roman part. The Greek coins had to be catalogued also alphabetically with reference to their new location in the drawers, while the Roman coins needed to be listed chronologically according to the arrangement of the coins in the drawers, but also alphabetically, according to reverse legends, so that upon enquiry the pieces could be readily checked without going through all the drawers of a given emperor, especially when new specimens were offered for purchase".
This seems to be a reference to the gifts of coins and a finger ring described in [[Frans_van_Cranevelt_-_Desiderius_Erasmus_-_1520-09-19|Cranevelt's letter to Erasmus]]. +
K
'The letter is addressed to ‘Revd Dr Sharp in the College Durham’: presumably Thomas Sharp. A date after 1732 is suggested by the address in Durham.' (Burnett 2020b, p. 1506 n. 24) +
